Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de207> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de207 RegisterActionDate "2017-08-17" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de207 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 8/17/2017. Plaintiff files 167 , a motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff essentially realleges the complaints of his underlying complaint, that his prostate/pelvic pain has not been adequately treated. His motion asserts that Defendant 0525C7E has chronically allowed his orders for a medical ice pack and Naproxen to lapse. He also asserts that Defendant has refused to place him on "General Medical Clinic" which is different than Chronic Clinic. Plaintiff requests an order compelling Dr. 0525C7E to reestablish a pain management plan, to place him on General Medical Clinic and order that he undergo a urology consult. To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show that its case has "some likelihood of success on the merits" and that it has "no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is denied." Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 694 (7th Cir.2011). Here, Defendants have denied Plaintiff's claims. As a result, it is not clear that Plaintiff would prevail on the merits. Additionally, Plaintiff has a legal remedy available through the lawsuit he has filed. Furthermore, it does not appear that Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm as he alleges that these complaints go back as far as 2011. 167 is DENIED. (JMB, ilcd) (Entered: 08/17/2017)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de207 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de207 hasJudgeReference SJ001500 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de207 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de203 @default.